Monthly Archives: July 2011

View 685 Thursday, July 28, 2011

· Hope and Change

· Sowing the wind

· A penny saved is a penny earned

·

The Land of Hope and Glory

I am as weary of the phony Deficit Debate as everyone else is. The President says we must compromise: we must raise the debt ceiling to accommodate the perpetual increases in the size of government and deficit; the term must extend past the next election; and he will generously compromise by allowing the perpetual increases to add to the deficit without requiring that we give him more tax revenue in exchange for his indulgence.

Welcome to Hope and Change.

Sowing the wind.

We don’t do breaking news, but it isn’t so much news as settling “when”: there has been another plot by a Muslim soldier to kill his comrades in protest against being “forced” to participate in the unjust wars in the Middle East.

U.S. officials told ABC News an AWOL serviceman, identified by the FBI as a Private First Class Naser Jason Abdo, was arrested Wednesday after making a purchase at Guns Galore in Killeen, Texas, the same ammunition store where Maj. Nidal Hasan purchased the weapons he allegedly used to gun down 13 people and wound 32 others on Nov. 5, 2009.

As to why it isn’t news:

Abdo told ABC News in 2010 he was Muslim and should not have to participate in what he called an "unjust war" in the Middle East.

"Any Muslim who knows his religion or maybe takes into account what his religion says can find out very clearly why he should not participate in the U.S. military," Abdo said then.

Welcome to the joys of diversity and entitlement. America was not built as a society of entitlement and diversity. There was a founding culture. It was a culture of tolerance, but tolerance is not the same as the celebration of “diversity.” Immigrants were always encouraged to assimilate. They were not forced to do so, but the public system tolerated diversity; it didn’t force it. There were crèches in the public square at Christmas. Later we added the menorah. Almost all public ceremonies were opened by an invocation by a Protestant minister. Over time we added a Catholic priest (and of course some communities always had included Catholics, although most had not). Later we added a rabbi. All of this was to show some deference to the American culture. We would tolerate diversity as a monument to our liberty but we did not set the public hangman the task of destroying the crèche in the public square. We did not use the courts as an engine of destruction of our culture.

Then we began to sow the wind. All cultures are equal. There is no American culture as such.

We have coupled diversity with egality and added entitlements. We have sown the wind.

And we reap the whirlwind. Nidal Hasan and Naser Abdo are not the last of the pale riders.

Addenda

Please do not point out to me that the history of the United States is filled with stories of intolerance, and particularly regional intolerances. Yes: but we managed to hold things together. National unity is not a given. Patriotism is not free. For an example relevant to today’s story: imagine an Amish soldier who insists on his right to be part of the Army, but that the Courts prevent the Army from using motorized vehicles anywhere near him since the sight of them offends him; now imagine a court granting that, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding that decision.

We can endure regional diversity. The abortion issue is an example. There is no national consensus. Shall we send armed agents to enforce whatever happens to be the opinion of a majority at the time? Shall the Army insist that Mother Superior perform abortions in St. Joseph’s, or jail abortionists who perform them? Left to the states the issue is endurable.

The goal is a society that holds together, not one of some ideal perfection.

The 99% Solution

I have several comments on yesterday’s essay on the Deficit Dance pointing our that my 1% budget cut plan is part of a proposal sometimes known as “The Penny Plan” or the Mack One Percent Plan. I will have more on that in Mail. I will point out that I proposed this to Newt Gingrich when he became Speaker, and there was some discussion of it as a means to get us out of the automatic government growth that is built into the budget process.

It is important to understand that no Congress has the power to bind a future Congress. If this Congress cannot get us out of the automatic increases in entitlements, another can. It may require replacing every single Senator, Member of Congress, the President and Vice President, and every senior civil servant in Washington, but it is possible simply not to fund “non-discretionary entitlements” . The Constitution is very clear: tax and revenue bills have to originate in the House, and “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

A bill that appropriates $1.00 for all services pertinent to the enforcement of ObamaCare? But it need not be so drastic. A bill that says that this year’s appropriation for any agency shall not exceed 99% of the amounts appropriated in the previous year removes the “non discretionary” entitlement of 108% that is now built into the budgetary system.

Let the House pass such an Appropriate Bill, and stick to it. Insert that into every appropriation that is sent to the President. No exceptions.

This didn’t happen when I proposed it back in the last Millennium, but perhaps it is time?

View 685 Wednesday, July 27, 2011

· Budget Cuts

· Debt Limit History

· Real Cuts

· What Should Boehner Do?

· Whales vs. school lunches

·

There Are No Cuts

Everyone is talking about Draconian cuts to the budget. The President won’t sign the Boehner Plan because of the cuts. Yet there are no cuts in that plan or in any plan proposed.

There are no cuts. None. Zip, Nada, Bupkis, Zero. None.

We need to understand how “budget cuts” are measured. The base line budget projects a $9.5 Trillion Dollar increase in spending over the next ten years. Any reduction in this increase in spending is officially a “cut.” Thus the Republican Deficit Plan mandates an approximate “cut” of $1 Trillion over the next decade in exchange for a rise in the Deficit Limit of $2 Trillion. Note that the $1 T “cut” isn’t assured, since it takes place in the future, and one Congress cannot bind another. (Note that. One Congress cannot bind a future Congress. It might be well to remember this.) But even if the $1 Trillion “cut” is faithfully carried out, the effect is that there will be an $8.5 Trillion increase in spending (and thus in Debt) over the next decade.

Put it this way. If Congress were to freeze spending: we will spend next year precisely what we spent this year on each project, none of them increased and none decreased – if Congress were to do that, the result would officially be a $9.5 Trillion cut. It would be a cut in government pay, in school lunches, in Medicare and Medicaid, to the Army and Navy, to the DOE SWAT team and the Department of Agriculture Pet Bunny Inspectors, a cut to Head Start, a cut the FDA, a cut to – well, you get the idea. Not spending more money every year is a cut, and a freeze on spending is a $9.5 Trillion Cut in Federal Spending. Cuts to school lunches, Medicare, Medicaid – well, we’ve said all that. Not spending more is a cut.

It hasn’t always been this way. Back in the 1960’s a “cut” was actually a cut; if a department’s budget got cut it meant that it got less money. But since the budget acts of the 70’s Federal spending automatically increases year after year and any reduction in that increase is scored as a cut.

So: if we adopt the Boehner Plan, we get what amounts to a $10 Trillion increase in spending over the next decade. And that, we are told, is the best we can hope for, and we ought to wheedle the Democrats and the President graciously to concede to give it to us good and hard.

Let me repeat that because while most of you know it, some don’t, and those who haven’t thought of it will find it hard to believe. A freeze in spending: a mandate that no department of government spend more next year than it spent this year; will be reported as a $9.5 Trillion cut. If Boehner gets all he asks for and then some, say a $1.5 Trillion cut over the next decade, he will have locked in an $8 Trillion increase in government expenditures (and thus the Deficit) over the next ten years. And the Democrats will decry the Draconian cuts in school lunches, education spending, Medicare, etc., etc. And at the moment the “non partisan Congressional Budget Office” believes that Boehner Plan would only “cut” $0.85 Trillion over ten years, meaning $850 Billion, meaning $85 Billion/year. The United States borrows $100 Billion a month.

There are never any actual cuts in spending. No one is proposing any. There are only temporary reductions in spending increases. No Plan by either Party contemplates any actual cut in spending. We are arguing over how much more we will let the deficit rise: $8 Trillion or $10 Trillion. If it only rises by $8 Trillion that will be counted a great victory with a $2 Trillion cut. Be prepared to pay.

Salve, Sclave.

The Limited Debt

A brief history: the debt limit in 2006 was   $8.2 Trillion.

It is now (2011)   $14.3 Trillion.

When this Dance is done the debt limit will be  $16.3 Trillion

In 2021 it will have to be somewhat more than $23.0 Trillion, and will continue to rise.

The Pournelle Plan

The Republican leadership proposes at best a $8.5 Trillion increase in federal spending over the next ten years. That is advertised as a Trillion Dollar Cut.

I propose that we not only freeze Federal spending, but impose a 1% reduction in all payments. That’s all of them. Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches, whale watchers, game wardens, and the rest of it. No adjustments. That will be hard on military families, and I know it, but that’s only for a year while the various departments readjust their budgets.

The following year each department other than the military is subject to a 2% budget cut, to be allocated as they see fit: reducing payments, laying off people, reducing pension obligations, whatever has to be done. At that time we reset the conditions for getting Welfare and Social Security: raise the automatic age by one month per month until it is 68, not 65. Adjust the non-retirement payments – disabilities, dependents, everything that people get who have not paid into Social Security to get it – by some small amount per year as we raise the qualification requirements for getting into those programs.

And we search through all the government programs to find those which we simply cannot afford so long as we have to borrow money to do them. This includes not only the obviously silly ones like Pet Bunny Inspectors, but much more importantly, the various regulations: is the economy strong enough to afford this kind of regulation? The assumption is that it is not: that we cannot afford it. As for example the FDA testing of “effectiveness” of drugs. Safety is fine. Testing for safety is fine. Accumulating data is fine. Certifying “effectiveness” is controversial to begin with, and interferes with people’s right to be damn fools. Freedom is the freedom to do things without your permission. Drugs will carry, in large readable letters, the warning that the effectiveness of this product has not been tested by the FDA. The FDA can enforce truth: if this says it contains snake oil it does in fact contain oil squeezed out of a snake – but makes no commitment about its effectiveness for any purpose. Take at your own risk. That’s freedom.

That sort of thing. Find things the government is doing that may or may not be a good idea, but which we can’t afford when we have to borrow money to do it. We can borrow money for investment, but most of that infrastructure investment is better made by the states anyway. We have already built the Federal Highways and the Interstate Highway. There are other essentials, but they need to be done in priority with the understanding that we have to borrow the money to do them.

Those can and should include genuine investments in technology development including space technology. Now that Shuttle is no longer eating NASA alive to feed the standing army it might be possible to have some genuine manned space development that isn’t built to pay 22,000 development scientists and technicians. We had that chance after the Challenger disaster, when the Citizens Advisory Council – Chairman J. E. Pournelle. PH.D. – urged that we not rebuild Challenger, but build a genuinely reusable manned ship, no tiles, no wings, lifting body, Shuttle Main Engine to run at 95% of maximum thrust instead of 103% thus meaning it is refillable not rebuildable, etc. This was endorsed by the whole Council which included the top space scientists and developers in the country; but instead they rebuilt the old bird, because the mission of Shuttle was to employ the standing army.

I am rambling. I haven’t the authority to propose anything. I may even be off my head, but I continue to insist that it is time to have a genuine prioritization of federal expenditures. Get rid of the stuff we can’t afford. And shared sacrifices must include the recipients of entitlements and government employees.

What Should Boehner Do?

We have to get through this. We will probably do it with some variant of the Boehner Plan. I hate that, but the one thing Boehner must not do is pretend he has made cuts. He should be honest. “I have got an agreement to raise the deficit $9 Trillion instead of $10 Trillion over the next decade, assuming that the Democrats actually agree. We have cut nothing. We will raise the Debt Ceiling because the President gives us no choice.” Say that, not that you have “compromised” and made budget cuts.

Be honest with us, Mr. Boehner. I understand that forcing the President to shut down the government would be a very dangerous thing, and most Americans do not want to see that happen. Just be honest with them: make it clear that this is no cut, that spending continues, that borrowing continues, and we have not got rid of any of the things we can’t afford. Tell us the blinking truth.

Whale Watch

Today’s LA Times tells us of a Federal program involving research ships and research aircraft: it studies whales and how they are being killed by ships colliding with them in the Santa Barbara Channel. In the past decade about 6 whales/year have been killed (that we know of. The number may be as high as 100, although that is unlikely).

It doesn’t give the cost of the program, but I’d guess about $10 million a year. It’s certainly worthwhile. It’s something I’d like to see done. And we can’t afford it. Or can we? If you have to choose, free school lunches or research on accidental deaths of whales in the Santa Barbara Channel, which would you choose?

It is that sort of choice that needs to be made when you have to borrow the money for these programs. And it is that sort of choice that no one is making.

View 685 Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The Deficit Dance

I hate to keep writing on this subject.

Budget Cuts: we will increase spending, but we will reduce the rate of increase. We just spent $9 Trillion we didn’t have, but we will make a $1.1 Trillion cut – over ten years. Which is to say we will cut $100 Billion a year, having spent $9 Trillion. The deficit will continue to grow. So the only choice is to raise taxes or the nation is finished, the elderly will not get their Social Security checks, the Veterans will not get their benefits. Inspectors in the Department of Agriculture will continue to get “cost of living” raises and step increases in their civil service ratings. Department of Education SWAT teams will get their raises including full health and pensions. The deficit will grow, and there will be another financial crisis. The EPA will continue to impose regulations, the courts will continue to accept lawsuits to harass anyone who intends to open a mine, drill an oil well, or create a business.

The only remedy will be to raise taxes. We must have shared sacrifices so that the Washington elites can go about business as usual. Washington public schools will continue to deteriorate but none of the elites will send their children to those public schools so that won’t be a problem.

In other words, the Dance goes on, and we are being played. Nothing much has changed. What’s called a cut is in fact merely a small decrease in the rate of increase, so that “cut” means spending more money. There will be a $1.1 Trillion cut spread over ten years, with a Commission of 12, 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats, to propose more cuts. If 7 of them can agree on a “cut” – which may be an actual cut but is more likely to be a reduction in the rate of increase – then both Houses of Congress have to approve the “cut”. This may amount to $2 Trillion spread over ten years, or $200 billion a year.

The government will continue to borrow $100 Billion a month. That amount will go up as the deficit rises. We will then be told that gollies, we did everything we could, but it’s not working, we have to have more revenue or we are in default, give us more money. When we point out that they promised cuts and didn’t deliver, we will be told that, well, yeah, but look at that guy with the private jet over there! Tax him, tax him! Look, that company made obscene profits last year! Tax them, tax them!

There is a way out. It starts with cuts in Entitlements. Begin this way: from this moment, you are entitled to only 99% of what you were previously entitled to. That includes Social Security, Welfare, your pension, Medicare. Meanwhile all government salaries and benefits are reduced by 1%. Once again, these are real cuts.

Set up the 12-person joint Congressional Commission, but its purpose is to identify programs that we can no longer afford to fund. Those will simply be eliminated or deferred until we have budget surpluses. They include a great number of regulatory agencies and enforcements. We set up a second Commission whose job it is to determine which regulations we can afford to put off until there is a budget surplus. In other words, determine what we can afford and must have even if we have to borrow money to do it. Everything else stops until we can afford it at which time we can debate the desirability of inspections of stage magicians to be certain they have a permit to use their rabbits in their acts. We can determine whether we have to reduce ozone emissions so drastically when we can afford to do that: but we don’t need to borrow money from the Chinese in order to cripple our ability to compete with the Chinese who don’t pay any attention to our environmental regulations.

We could try liberty. Leave the money to those who make it and get out of the way.

Or we can continue to Dance. Spend and spend, pretend to cut, spend and spend, pretend to cut, and when the next crisis comes, raise taxes.

Birth of Fire, a science fiction action adventure novel by Jerry Pournelle, is available on Amazon now, and will presently be available for the Nook.

Birth of Fire by Jerry Pournelle is now available for Nook as well as Amazon.